Oh, what a copy editor could have done for the Second Amendment

APTim Christman, left, shows Matt Gertsch a Smith & Wesson M&P .45 automatic cartridge pistol at Shooter's Sports Center in Racine, Wis. on Thursday June 26, 2008. Gertsch, who was looking at pistols while at the store to buy some arrows, said he has owns a variety of guns for sport and for protection.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week, overturning nearly 70 years of legal precedent, ruled that gun ownership is an individual right and not tied to service in a militia.

The ruling is expected to increase the intensity of the gun debate over what the authors of the Second Amendment truly intended.

Imagine all the trouble that would have been saved if the Founding Fathers had been wise enough to use a good newspaper copy editor.

"Bob, can I see you a minute?"

"Yes?"

"I like some of what you've done with this Second Amendment thing."

"Thanks, I worked all night on it."

"Yes, but I think there's a tweak or two we
need to make."

"What are you talking about? It's perfect!"

"Perfect, Bob? I think not. For instance, see here where you've written: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'?"

"Yes?"

"Well, it's unclear."

"It is not!"

"It is so. For instance, are you saying that everyone can own a gun, or are you saying they can own a gun as long as they're part of a militia?"

"I, uh ..."

"Let's try this: 'People can own guns. Period.' Does that reflect what you were trying to say, Bob?"

"Well, kind of, but ..."

"If not, then how about this: 'People can't own guns unless they join a militia.' Is that closer to what you meant?"

"Well, kinda but ..."

"Well, which is it? You can't leave it the way it is because people won't be sure, and then you'll have a mess on your hands. Is that what you want, Bob?"

"Well, no, but ..."

"C'mon, c'mon, I don' t have all day. Which is it? I mean, it can't be both. If you leave that first clause in there people are bound to say you mean guns are only for a militia, especially since you use the term well-regulated. Do you see what I'm getting at?"

"Yes, but ..."

"And while you're at it, well-regulated is pretty subjective, don't you think? I mean, honestly, what's that mean? Well regulated to me might mean something entirely different to you. You're setting yourself up for trouble with that one, bub."

"Right, but ..."

"And while I'm on the subject, what about militia?"

"What about it?"

"Well, again, what's it mean? Do you mean uniforms, officers, brigades, that sort of thing? Or do you mean everybody who wants to go fight the government if it starts to go all King George on us?"

"Well, like I said, I ..."

"Honestly, Bob, this just won't do."

"But ..."

"No buts, Bob. This is just bad writing. Say what you mean, man. Then be done with it."

"Don't you think you're being just a little picky?"

"Picky, Bob? I'm a copy editor. Picky is what I do. And you should be glad that it is. I mean, this amendment, as insignificant as it seems now, might turn out to be big. You don't just
want to dash it off. What if, by your sloppiness, legal scholars end up debating what you
meant for hundreds and hundreds of years?"